Lawyer’s Insights: In patent infringement litigation, defendants can raise defenses from multiple angles. In the two related cases involved in this case, the accused infringing products were both stemmed glasses. However, after analysis, the legal team identified the main defense angles as prior art defense and non-infringement defense. Ultimately, both defenses were supported in the two cases, resulting in victories in both.
In case (2024) Jingminzhong No. 24, the court held that: The evidence for the prior art defense was published before the patent application date in question, and both the prior art and the patent in question had a basically vertically upward-facing rim. Furthermore, the rims of designs 1 and 2 in the patent in question were basically vertically positioned after the cup walls contracted, forming a basically vertical rim with a certain height. The rims of the accused infringing products gradually narrowed, while the rims of the patent in question were vertical. Although Comparative Design 2 does not disclose its bottom view, only showing that the bottom of the cup is roughly flat, the bottom is less noticeable during use compared to the rim, which is of concern to consumers. Furthermore, both the patent in question and the accused infringing product have flat bottoms, a common design for glass cups. Regarding the concentric circles and their relative proportions at the bottom, the formation of these concentric circles in both the patent in question and the accused infringing product is due to the different cross-sectional sizes of various parts of the cup. Based on the diameters of the various parts shown in the front view, the approximate layout and proportions of the concentric circles at the bottom can be inferred. Since the front view of the accused infringing product is essentially identical to that of Comparative Design 2, it can be concluded that their concentric circles and proportions at the bottom are basically the same. Even if there are differences, they are minor local differences and insufficient to significantly affect the overall visual effect.
In conclusion, the overall visual effect of the accused infringing product is essentially the same as that of Comparative Design 2. Compared to the patent in question, the overall visual effect of the accused infringing product is closer to that of Comparative Design 2. The accused infringing product constitutes prior art, and the prior art defense of Fuguang Hongxuan Company and Xuan Moumou is valid; they have not infringed on the patent rights.
In case No. (2024) Jingminzhong 25, the court held that: Comparing the accused infringing product with the patent in question, the main similarities are: both are shaped like stemmed glasses, with a rounded, flared belly, upward-extending walls that gradually narrow to form the rim, and both have a base and a support above. The support smoothly extends upwards, merging with the outer contour of the belly, and gradually slopes downwards to form a nearly circular base. The main differences are: the proportions of the support pillars differ; the support pillar between the stem and belly in the patent has a distinct cylindrical section with a straight outer side, while the corresponding section in the accused infringing product is essentially flat, with a smoother side; the width of the support pillar in the patent is proportionally larger than the width of the belly and rim, while the corresponding width of the accused infringing product is smaller. For the average consumer, the rounded, flared body and the support connecting the base and body are typical features of this type of product. The main difference lies in the proportions of the support, which significantly impacts the overall visual effect. The accused infringing product is clearly different from the patent in question; therefore, the accused infringing product does not constitute an approximation of the patent and does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent.
Parties:
Appellant: Shanghai XX Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd.
Appellee (Client): Beijing Fuguang Hongxuan Trading Co., Ltd., Xuan Moumou
Case Summary: This case involves two disputes concerning infringement of design patent rights. Shanghai XX Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd., dissatisfied with the first-instance civil judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in a case concerning infringement of design patent rights with Beijing Fuguang Hongxuan Trading Co., Ltd. and Xuan Moumou, appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court. Shanghai XX Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. requested the reversal of the first-instance judgment; a retrial or remand for retrial; and that the costs of both the first and second instance proceedings be borne by Fuguang Hongxuan Company and Xuan Moumou. The appellee’s lawyers argued for non-infringement and prior art defense in both cases. The Beijing Higher People’s Court upheld the appellee’s claims, dismissing the appeals in both cases, resulting in a complete victory for the client.
Document Numbers:
(2024) Jingminzhong No. 24 Civil Judgment
(2024) Jingminzhong No. 25 Civil Judgment